I think that hate crimes are different from other crimes. They target a specific group and the crime occurs not only against the individual but also against the group to which that individual belongs. I've been to several vigils in the past few years for drag queens, gay and transgendered people and I can testify to the fear such crimes send out to a community. As a gay person myself, I feel the violence against a victim of a hate crime has the ability to terrorize an entire disadvantaged group because it sends out a message of fear. It is targeted specifically towards a disadvantaged group of people for no other reason than the very fact they exist on this planet. Unlike most other crime, hate crimes are based solely on hatred and bias, with violence against the individual being its only motivation and reward.

If there is a crime spree in a neighbourhood, you can take steps to protect yourself from it; add more security to your home, walk with a buddy, start a neighbourhood watch, but a hate crime is different in that you cannot simply stop being who you are or hide your skin colour or disability in order to avoid violence. Hate crimes are also different in that they are often inflicted upon groups who are afraid to report the incident to the police for fear of it not being taken seriously or encountering more discrimination. Only a small percentage of hate motivated crimes are ever reported to the criminal justice system.

The violence against minority groups is often a result of very important and defining characteristics of the victim's own sense of identity, additional factors that can create feelings of vulnerability and loss. For example, a gay person who is assaulted because of his or her sexual orientation will suffer not only the physical trauma of the assault, but also the affront to their character. The difference with hate crimes is the impact they have on whole communities. Hate crimes increase the level of fear, and they heighten the level of tension between different racial and ethnic groups.

hate crimes are just made up nonsense to extra punish someone who did something bad against one of the ever increasing protected classes. Logically, it actually violates the equal protection clause and should be considered unconstitutional. Sorry, but murdering a black person because you're a racist bigot actually isn't worse than murdering anyone else for any other reason. Try telling some white kids whose mom was just murdered by a stalker or abusive husband, "hey well at least your mom wasn't black and killed by a racist, then it would have been waaaay worse". Frankly, the motive for murder (or any crime) is irrelevant to justice beyond establishing the likelihood that the suspect is the actual perpetrator.

For some reason these days, whenever talking about race and all the other protected class BS, people just totally shut off their brains and let emotion take over.

- - - Updated - - -

To the extent we're gong to accept the nonsense of "hate crimes", then this clearly fits the bill. I'd prefer to do away with this crap though.

Dylann Roof was just sentenced to death under the federal hate crime legislation for the mass shooting in a church in Charleston. The 22 year old white supremacist reiterated his belief that he 'had to do it' because he hated the behaviour of Black people. Its a similar assertion to what the primary assailant of Matthew Shepard claimed when he said that 'Matthew Shepard needed killing.' It comes down to the fierce belief of hate-motivated killers that the world would be better of without their targeted group in it, combined with a complete lack of remorse for committing the act.

hate crimes are just made up nonsense to extra punish someone who did something bad against one of the ever increasing protected classes. Logically, it actually violates the equal protection clause and should be considered unconstitutional. Sorry, but murdering a black person because you're a racist bigot actually isn't worse than murdering anyone else for any other reason. Try telling some white kids whose mom was just murdered by a stalker or abusive husband, "hey well at least your mom wasn't black and killed by a racist, then it would have been waaaay worse". Frankly, the motive for murder (or any crime) is irrelevant to justice beyond establishing the likelihood that the suspect is the actual perpetrator.

For some reason these days, whenever talking about race and all the other protected class BS, people just totally shut off their brains and let emotion take over.

- - - Updated - - -

To the extent we're gong to accept the nonsense of "hate crimes", then this clearly fits the bill. I'd prefer to do away with this crap though.

I have to disagree (no surprise, right?). The starting point of hate crime legislation is recognizing that criminal activity motivated by hate is different from other criminal conduct and the impact is different as well.

Hate crimes happen because of an irrational contempt of the victim, because of their race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. Let's be clear on this: In the majority of these crimes, if it weren't for the victim’s personal characteristic, no crime would occur at all!

Hate crimes will have a very special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim’s community. Hate crimes cause physical harm and may effectively intimidate other members of the victim’s community, leaving them feeling terrorized, vulnerable, and unprotected by the law. By making the victim’s community fearful, angry, and suspicious of other groups, and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them, these incidents can damage and divide communities. In short, they have a ripple effect.

A crime of vandalism where a message is spray painted on the side of a synagogue proclaiming 'Star Wars rules!' is not the same as the graffiti which is more frequently seen on the side of synagogues which are death threats and swastikas, nor is the impact the same.

There are very few crimes that can start riots, but hate crimes have the capacity to do that. Laws that address these crimes can have a deterrent impact and can limit the potential for a hate crime to turn into a cycle of violence and division of the community.

Dylann Roof was just sentenced to death under the federal hate crime legislation for the mass shooting in a church in Charleston. The 22 year old white supremacist reiterated his belief that he 'had to do it' because he hated the behaviour of Black people. Its a similar assertion to what the primary assailant of Matthew Shepard claimed when he said that 'Matthew Shepard needed killing.' It comes down to the fierce belief of hate-motivated killers that the world would be better of without their targeted group in it, combined with a complete lack of remorse for committing the act.

Logically, it actually violates the equal protection clause and should be considered unconstitutional.

I'm interested in how, precisely, hate crime legislation is in violation of the Equal Protection provisions of the US Constitution. I'm interested in how you think a belief in the inherent inferiority/undesirability of entire classes of people should in itself be a protected class.

So why is he still on the planet? His head in a guillotine basket in front of the courthouse would make a point to anyone who might be considering future such actions.

because of that whole Due Process thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Traemo

I'm interested in how, precisely, hate crime legislation is in violation of the Equal Protection provisions of the US Constitution. I'm interested in how you think a belief in the inherent inferiority/undesirability of entire classes of people should in itself be a protected class.

I'm interested in how on earth you conflated what I said with the drivel I bolded.

To keep it simple, there should be NO protected classes. All people should enjoy equal access to justice.

He's been convicted and sentenced to death; Due Process has been followed.

Originally Posted by mikejames

I'm interested in how on earth you conflated what I said with the drivel I bolded.

To keep it simple, there should be NO protected classes. All people should enjoy equal access to justice.

In a perfect world, yes, there would be no need to define traits by which one should not discriminate against others. In case you haven't noticed, this isn't theoretical perfect world. This is the real world, where people can be raging assholes. They abuse and oppress others for not better reason than they're different.

To a large extent, the Constitution exists because people can't get along. The 14th Amendment explicitly states that race, national origin, previous state of servitude are not valid reasons to mistreat another. It had to; even with the restrictions put in place the and later, Jim Crow laws de facto and de jure made blacks second-class citizens.

I think that hate crimes are different from other crimes. They target a specific group and the crime occurs not only against the individual but also against the group to which that individual belongs. I've been to several vigils in the past few years for drag queens, gay and transgendered people and I can testify to the fear such crimes send out to a community. As a gay person myself, I feel the violence against a victim of a hate crime has the ability to terrorize an entire disadvantaged group because it sends out a message of fear. It is targeted specifically towards a disadvantaged group of people for no other reason than the very fact they exist on this planet. Unlike most other crime, hate crimes are based solely on hatred and bias, with violence against the individual being its only motivation and reward.

If there is a crime spree in a neighbourhood, you can take steps to protect yourself from it; add more security to your home, walk with a buddy, start a neighbourhood watch, but a hate crime is different in that you cannot simply stop being who you are or hide your skin colour or disability in order to avoid violence. Hate crimes are also different in that they are often inflicted upon groups who are afraid to report the incident to the police for fear of it not being taken seriously or encountering more discrimination. Only a small percentage of hate motivated crimes are ever reported to the criminal justice system.

The violence against minority groups is often a result of very important and defining characteristics of the victim's own sense of identity, additional factors that can create feelings of vulnerability and loss. For example, a gay person who is assaulted because of his or her sexual orientation will suffer not only the physical trauma of the assault, but also the affront to their character. The difference with hate crimes is the impact they have on whole communities. Hate crimes increase the level of fear, and they heighten the level of tension between different racial and ethnic groups.

the problem with hate crime laws is that they're built on an externality, the extension you speak of when you say your being gay you "feel the violence"....(no, you don't, the actual victim felt the violence, you felt sad... but that's another issue). Another example you gave in another post is when a swastika is painted on a temple, it's the whole local jewish community that is victimized. They're all in fear now. When someone who hates Mexicans kills a Mexican immigrant, the whole local Mexican immigrant population shares in the victimhood because now they're in fear. Sorry, but this argument is frankly very very silly. Here's why by way of example: Say an arsonist burns down 5 houses in a neighborhood. Wouldn't every other homeowner be in fear that their house is next? Wouldn't they too share in the victimhood in the very same way as your special people examples? So surely the arsonist should be charged with a hate crime...he's not only burned down several houses but also put a whole community in fear. If a bunch of houses in my neighborhood were burned down, I'd feel quite uneasy. But I get no justice for my uneasiness by way of seeing the arsonist charged with a "hate crime". And surely, the local Jews who are all saddened to learn a swastika was spray painted on the synagogue get their justice for their uneasiness even though the homeowner's uneasiness/fear is probably greater. But of course we're talking about subjective things here, emotion. You cannot prove you're troubled by hearing about a gay person being beat up, I can't prove I'm afraid my house is going to burn next, and my Jewish neighbors can't prove their feelings. But the feelings are likely real. But you want only justice for 2 out of three and you base it on arbitrary characteristics about the victim and his/her community/affinity group.

When black teens across this country play their Knockout Game where they hunt down and beat (to death in some cases) white people, isn't it reasonable that white people might be in fear then? So why are the Knockout Game incidents (also known as polar bear hunting) ever prosecuted as hate crimes?

Further, proving that "hate" is the actual motive of a crime is not always easy, but when the victim is a special minority snowflake it is presumed and stacks the cards of justice against the defendant. "Harm" to others other than the actual victim cannot be proven, yet it is accepted as a basis for punishment in hate crimes sentencing. The criminal, thus, is punished for an unproveable crime, at least an unproveable aspect of the crime. That is NOT just. It cannot reasonably be considered justice that a person is punished without absent proof.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Traemo

He's been convicted and sentenced to death; Due Process has been followed.

He hasn't appealed yet. So no, there's still a good deal of Due Process to go before you can kill him.

. Here's why by way of example: Say an arsonist burns down 5 houses in a neighborhood. Wouldn't every other homeowner be in fear that their house is next? Wouldn't they too share in the victimhood in the very same way as your special people examples? So surely the arsonist should be charged with a hate crime...he's not only burned down several houses but also put a whole community in fear. If a bunch of houses in my neighborhood were burned down, I'd feel quite uneasy. But I get no justice for my uneasiness by way of seeing the arsonist charged with a "hate crime". And surely, the local Jews who are all saddened to learn a swastika was spray painted on the synagogue get their justice for their uneasiness even though the homeowner's uneasiness/fear is probably greater. But of course we're talking about subjective things here, emotion. You cannot prove you're troubled by hearing about a gay person being beat up, I can't prove I'm afraid my house is going to burn next, and my Jewish neighbors can't prove their feelings. But the feelings are likely real. But you want only justice for 2 out of three and you base it on arbitrary characteristics about the victim and his/her community/affinity group.

When black teens across this country play their Knockout Game where they hunt down and beat (to death in some cases) white people, isn't it reasonable that white people might be in fear then? So why are the Knockout Game incidents (also known as polar bear hunting) ever prosecuted as hate crimes?

Further, proving that "hate" is the actual motive of a crime is not always easy, but when the victim is a special minority snowflake it is presumed and stacks the cards of justice against the defendant. "Harm" to others other than the actual victim cannot be proven, yet it is accepted as a basis for punishment in hate crimes sentencing. The criminal, thus, is punished for an unproveable crime, at least an unproveable aspect of the crime. That is NOT just. It cannot reasonably be considered justice that a person is punished without absent proof.

Well, let's consider the arson example. If there was a rash of fires in a community, then the investigating officers would look for patterns, motives, and trends to catch the culprit, such as street gang involvement, drug deals or domestic violence against a past partner. These crimes are often targeted against a specific person or group of people where the criminal and victim are known to each other. The crimes are frequently based on profit, revenge and extremism.

Let's say the arson attack occurs against a Black family that just moved into a white neighbourhood and that a burning cross is found flaming on the lawn. You have to consider the intent of the crime and the impact it has on the community, and that some crimes have a different impact when it results in the violence or deaths of specific segments of society. Racist crimes by groups like the KKK do more than terrorize an individual, they are systematically organized crimes targeting certain races who do not fall into their definition of humankind. They put themselves in place of God and decide who should live and who shouldn't.

Also, you're right that hate crimes can be difficult to prove, but when you look back at the cases I've cited with links throughout my posts, you can see clear examples with perpetrators of hate crimes who proudly proclaimed it was their mission to kill the victim(s) and that the victims 'needed killing.' Certainly these cases have stood up to the stringent criteria of hate crime legislation and should be treated as such.

Well, let's consider the arson example. If there was a rash of fires in a community, then the investigating officers would look for patterns, motives, and trends to catch the culprit, such as street gang involvement, drug deals or domestic violence against a past partner. These crimes are often targeted against a specific person or group of people where the criminal and victim are known to each other. The crimes are frequently based on profit, revenge and extremism.

Let's say the arson attack occurs against a Black family that just moved into a white neighbourhood and that a burning cross is found flaming on the lawn. You have to consider the intent of the crime and the impact it has on the community, and that some crimes have a different impact when it results in the violence or deaths of specific segments of society. Racist crimes by groups like the KKK do more than terrorize an individual, they are systematically organized crimes targeting certain races who do not fall into their definition of humankind. They put themselves in place of God and decide who should live and who shouldn't.

Also, you're right that hate crimes can be difficult to prove, but when you look back at the cases I've cited with links throughout my posts, you can see clear examples with perpetrators of hate crimes who proudly proclaimed it was their mission to kill the victim(s) and that the victims 'needed killing.' Certainly these cases have stood up to the stringent criteria of hate crime legislation and should be treated as such.

Why? Why do we have to consider the intent of the crime? It's irrelevant. You can't prove that the rest of the abstract community feels terrorized.

Yes, some perpetrators pronounce exactly why they did it. But so what? You can't prove anyone beyond the actual victim was victimized. By you want to punish based on your belief that a broader group was actually harmed. Essentially you want extra punishment for hurting people's feelings. That's absurd. The penalty for premeditated murder or arson or assault should be the same regardless of whatever motivated the perpetrator.